Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

On Sep 6, 9:12 pm, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 6, 12:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

...

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.

So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
millions of people of something he never said. ...

Millions of people are idiots.

I challenge you to find a major newspaper that does NOT
publish horoscopes.

Mind you, _I_ personally do NOT think GWB is an idiot.
He isn't brilliant but his SAT scores indicate that he is
brighter than the average college-educated person, on
par with John Kerry, with whom he also shares nearly
equal GPAs at Yale. . I remain curious as to the
cause of his aphasia and if it was a life-long disability
or something developed in adulthood.


More than likely the years of substance abuse.. But really, I think
that the majority of the damage was caused by having such a narrow
point of view..


bertie

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?


Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

Thread drift, indeed...

Mark "focus, Bernie, focus" Hickey

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
the destruction).

Which WAS the whole point, after all.

I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
they need to see, and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
UNMOVIC... that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities (as clearly
evidenced by the quotes you provide from the report below).

I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
else to add.

Mark "facts is facts" Hickey

6 March 2003
APPENDIX
A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
...

Destruction
...
During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
war...

Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...

. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.

...

Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
Lieutenant-
General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
selected
chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
unilateral
destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
declaration
of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
unfilled
munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
Vx.
[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
2002, FF]
...
The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
28,000
munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
upervision.
...
Dual-use capabilities to 1998
...

Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
1998.

Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
production,
or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
fears
was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]


Conclusions

UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
destruction
of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
Issues.

Understand???

...
By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...

[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
..

It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
regional threat.

[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]

IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME

...

Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.

[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
UNMOVIC.]

Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
account of its BW programme.
...
In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
complex, including all its equipment and materials.
...
These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
1998.

[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]


Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme

Unilateral destruction

The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
uncertainties
regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
have been accounted for.


***

In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
constitute evidence of post turn of the century
WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.

THAT is what the report says.

The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
proving a negative hypothesis.

To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
defies reason.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...


FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones? That
wouldn't be characteristic.

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.

What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
more factually challenged than even Rush).

Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

See above.

Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.

Oh, yeah, he's really faded into the woodwork... LOL.

Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

As is Air America... oh, wait...

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound). This is why the founding
fathers didn't really envision a true "one man, one vote" democracy,
but rather figured to limit the voting to the successful and educated.
Horribly non-PC, but not without merit either.

I agree entirely with you about the dangers of the voting public - the
average voter's grasp of actual facts is frighteningly shallow. They
form opinions watching (choke) political advertisements, and of
course, listening to talking heads spin the news and reporting to
match their own ideology. In the end about all you can count on for
sure is that either side would sell us all down the river for an
advantage at the polls.

Mark "pragmatist" Hickey

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Thread drift, indeed...

Mark "focus, Bernie, focus" Hickey-

Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

I'm perfectly focused.


I've also got the big picture.


Bertie

On 7 sep, 07:54, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:





On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones? That
wouldn't be characteristic.

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.

What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
more factually challenged than even Rush).

Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

See above.

Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.

Oh, yeah, he's really faded into the woodwork... LOL.

Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

As is Air America... oh, wait...

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound). This is why the founding
fathers didn't really envision a true "one man, one vote" democracy,
but rather figured to limit the voting to the successful and educated.
Horribly non-PC, but not without merit either.

I agree entirely with you about the dangers of the voting public - the
average voter's grasp of actual facts is frighteningly shallow. They
form opinions watching (choke) political advertisements, and of
course, listening to talking heads spin the news and reporting to
match their own ideology. In the end about all you can count on for
sure is that either side would sell us all down the river for an
advantage at the polls.

Mark "pragmatist" Hickey- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.


and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.



Bertie

On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:



On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
That wouldn't be characteristic.

Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
happened.

The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
was a slip.


See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.

What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
more factually challenged than even Rush).

That is my point.

...

Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

As is Air America... oh, wait...

Indeed. Perhaps we agree that political entertainers
are unduly influential.


Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..


It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

--

FF

Note follow-ups

On Sep 7, 5:44 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
the destruction).

False.

The report leaves no doubt whatsoever that the
production facilities were destroyed.

Lingering doubts that some fifteen-year old materials
might not have been destroyed at the time and place
reported to UNSCOM years earlier are mitigated by
the short shelf-life of Iraqi WMD.


Which WAS the whole point, after all.

Indeed. That Iraq was not a threat to the US, was
exacltly the point. In fact, Irraq was not a credible
threatto any of its neighbors either.


I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
they need to see,

Rather, you see what you want to see.

and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
UNMOVIC...

Really? How did you become privy to the conclusions reached
by EVERY intelligence agency in the world?

In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son -in law, Hussein
Kamel al-Majid, who directed Iraq's clandestine
weapons program defected. He claimed that Iraq
had destroyed all of its WMD stockpiles. Later
he was persuaded to return to Iraq, where he was
executed.

Some years before the 2003 invasion, Iraqi Foreign Minister
Naji Sabri became a mole for US intelligence. He confirmed
what al-Majid had said--Iraq had no WMD.

The US also had a third source, code-names 'curveball',
an Iraqi exile living in Germany. Curveball claimed to have
worked in the Iraqi BW program and to have intimate knowledge
of the Iraqi CW program. Despite the evidence that he had
not left Germany for fifteen years and the fact that German
intelligence had characterized him as a 'crazy drunk'

The October, 2002 NIE on Iraq, or to be more accurate, the
declassified portions of it, rely entirely on Curveball and
ignore the other two sources.

Why do YOU suppose that is?

that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities
(as clearly evidenced by the quotes you provide from the
report below).

The report leaves no doubt as to the destruction of production
facilities and makes it clear that unresolved issues are
SPECULATIVE .


I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
else to add.

Before you go, could you please point to the part of report that
supports your earlier claim that the report that blows my clain of
unfettered access with UNMOVIC out of the air?

Also, please refer us to the parts that cast doubt on the conclusion
that the Iraqi production facilities were destroyed and not rebuilt?


Mark "facts is facts" Hickey

The fact is that you have not presented evidence that Iraq
was a threat.


6 March 2003
APPENDIX
A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
...

Destruction
...
During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
war...

Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...

. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.

...

Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
Lieutenant- General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction
of selected chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed
to UNSCOM at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons
for
this unilateral destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM
might find more into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
declaration of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
unfilled munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
Vx.
[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
2002, FF]
...
The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
28,000
munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
upervision.
...
Dual-use capabilities to 1998
...

Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
1998.

Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
production,
or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
fears
was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]

Conclusions

UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
destruction
of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
Issues.

Understand???

...
By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...

[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
..

It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
regional threat.

[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]

IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME

...

Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.

[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
UNMOVIC.]

Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
account of its BW programme.
...
In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
complex, including all its equipment and materials.
...
These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
1998.

[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]

Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme

Unilateral destruction

The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
uncertainties
regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
have been accounted for.

***

In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
constitute evidence of post turn of the century
WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.

THAT is what the report says.

The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
proving a negative hypothesis.

To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
defies reason.

On Sep 6, 12:45 am, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:58 pm, "Morgans" wrote:

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented".

What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
before allowing the inspectors to enter?

No, I do not.



That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.

Please.

Please tell us the DATE of the incident to which you refer.



Perhaps I was too subtle. The point being that you were
most likely confabulating UNSCOM incidents from the
1990s with the UNMOVIC inspections of 2003.

"Full and unfettered access" refers to the latter, not the
former.

--

FF

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...

Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey